Performing a downhole pressure test

ABSTRACT

A method and system for performing a pressure test. The method may comprise inserting a formation testing tool into a wellbore to a first location within the wellbore, identifying one or more tool parameters of the formation testing tool, performing a first pre-test with the pressure transducer when the pressure has stabilized to identify formation parameters, inputting the formation parameters and the one or more tool parameters into a forward model, changing the one or more tool parameters to a second set of tool parameters; performing a second pre-test with the second set of tool parameters; and comparing the first pre-test to the second pre-test. A system may comprise at least one probe, a pump disposed within the formation testing tool, at least one stabilizer, a pressure transducer disposed at least partially in the at least one fluid passageway, and an information handling system.

BACKGROUND

During oil and gas exploration, many types of information may becollected and analyzed. The information may be used to determine thequantity and quality of hydrocarbons in a reservoir and to develop ormodify strategies for hydrocarbon production. For instance, theinformation may be used for reservoir evaluation, flow assurance,reservoir stimulation, facility enhancement, production enhancementstrategies, and reserve estimation. One technique for collectingrelevant information involves pressure testing a reservoir of interestat any specified depth. There are a variety of different tools that maybe used to perform the pressure test. Pressure test operations may beutilized to determine formation parameters at a specified depth.

Currently, methods and systems for pressure testing a formation are timeconsuming and inefficient. Additionally, current methods and systems donot identify locations that may not be acceptable for formation testinguntil after many pressure tests have been performed and have failed.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

These drawings illustrate certain aspects of some of the examples of thepresent disclosure, and should not be used to limit or define thedisclosure;

FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of an example of a formation testing toolon a wireline;

FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram of an example of the formation testingtool on a drill string;

FIG. 3 is a schematic drawing of the formation testing tool;

FIG. 4 is a flow chart for identify operational parameters forperforming a pressure test; and

FIG. 5 is a flow chart for identifying stability and quality.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

This disclosure presents a method for operation a formation testing toolduring a pressure test with as few as two drawdowns. By utilizing anynumber of partial tests and correction test with respect to buildup timeand pressure test quality, the pressure test information is obtained inthe shortest time all within predefined constraints already utilized forsafety and tool operational constraints. Furthermore, this method isfully automated with optimal warnings for poor control. The method mayutilize additional pressure tests to confirm pressure test repeatabilityand may be used to identify if a location is a bad pressure testlocation by the second partial pre-test thereby aborting any futuretesting at the specified location.

FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram is shown of formation testing tool 100 ona conveyance 102. As illustrated, wellbore 104 may extend throughsubterranean formation 106. In examples, reservoir fluid may becontaminated with well fluid (e.g., drilling fluid) from wellbore 104.As described herein, the fluid sample may be analyzed to determine fluidcontamination and other fluid properties of the reservoir fluid. Asillustrated, a wellbore 104 may extend through subterranean formation106. While the wellbore 104 is shown extending generally vertically intothe subterranean formation 106, the principles described herein are alsoapplicable to wellbores that extend at an angle through the subterraneanformation 106, such as horizontal and slanted wellbores. For example,although FIG. 1 shows a vertical or low inclination angle well, highinclination angle or horizontal placement of the well and equipment isalso possible. It should further be noted that while FIG. 1 generallydepicts a land-based operation, those skilled in the art will readilyrecognize that the principles described herein are equally applicable tosubsea operations that employ floating or sea-based platforms and rigs,without departing from the scope of the disclosure.

As illustrated, a hoist 108 may be used to run formation testing tool100 into wellbore 104. Hoist 108 may be disposed on a vehicle 110. Hoist108 may be used, for example, to raise and lower conveyance 102 inwellbore 104. While hoist 108 is shown on vehicle 110, it should beunderstood that conveyance 102 may alternatively be disposed from ahoist 108 that is installed at surface 112 instead of being located onvehicle 110. Formation testing tool 100 may be suspended in wellbore 104on conveyance 102. Other conveyance types may be used for conveyingformation testing tool 100 into wellbore 104, including coiled tubingand wired drill pipe, for example. Formation testing tool 100 mayinclude a tool body 114, which may be elongated as shown on FIG. 1. Toolbody 114 may be any suitable material, including without limitationtitanium, stainless steel, alloys, plastic, combinations thereof, andthe like. Formation testing tool 100 may further include one or moresensors 116 for measuring properties of the fluid sample, reservoirfluid, wellbore 104, subterranean formation 106, or the like. Inexamples, formation testing tool 100 may also include a fluid analysismodule 118, which may be operable to process information regarding fluidsample, as described below. Formation testing tool 100 may be used tocollect fluid samples from subterranean formation 106 and may obtain andseparately store different fluid samples from subterranean formation106.

In examples, fluid analysis module 118 may include at least one a sensorthat may continuously monitor a reservoir fluid. Such sensors includeoptical sensors, acoustic sensors, electromagnetic sensors, conductivitysensors, resistivity sensors, selective electrodes, density sensors,mass sensors, thermal sensors, chromatography sensors, viscositysensors, bubble point sensors, fluid compressibility sensors, flow ratesensors. Sensors may measure a contrast between drilling fluid filtrateproperties and formation fluid properties.

In examples, fluid analysis module 118 may be a gas chromatographyanalyzer (GC). A gas chromatography analyzer may separate and analyzecompounds that may be vaporized without decomposition. Fluid samplesfrom wellbore 104 may be injected into a GC column and vaporized.Different compounds may be separated due to their retention timedifference in the vapor state. Analyses of the compounds may bedisplayed in GC chromatographs. In examples, a mixture of formationfluid and drilling fluid filtrate may be separated and analyzed todetermine the properties within the formation fluid and drilling fluidfiltrate.

Fluid analysis module 118 may be operable to derive properties andcharacterize the fluid sample. By way of example, fluid analysis module118 may measure absorption, transmittance, or reflectance spectra andtranslate such measurements into component concentrations of the fluidsample, which may be lumped component concentrations, as describedabove. The fluid analysis module 118 may also measure gas-to-oil ratio,fluid composition, water cut, live fluid density, live fluid viscosity,formation pressure, and formation temperature. Fluid analysis module 118may also be operable to determine fluid contamination of the fluidsample and may include any instrumentality or aggregate ofinstrumentalities operable to compute, classify, process, transmit,receive, retrieve, originate, switch, store, display, manifest, detect,record, reproduce, handle, or utilize any form of information,intelligence, or data for business, scientific, control, or otherpurposes. For example, fluid analysis module 118 may include randomaccess memory (RAM), one or more processing units, such as a centralprocessing unit (CPU), or hardware or software control logic, ROM,and/or other types of nonvolatile memory.

Any suitable technique may be used for transmitting signals from theformation testing tool 100 to surface 112. As illustrated, acommunication link 120 (which may be wired or wireless, for example) maybe provided that may transmit data from formation testing tool 100 to aninformation handling system 122 at surface 112. Information handlingsystem 122 may include a processing unit 124, a monitor 126, an inputdevice 128 (e.g., keyboard, mouse, etc.), and/or computer media 130(e.g., optical disks, magnetic disks) that can store code representativeof the methods described herein. Information handling system 122 may actas a data acquisition system and possibly a data processing system thatanalyzes information from formation testing tool 100. For example,information handling system 122 may process the information fromformation testing tool 100 for determination of fluid contamination.Information handling system 122 may also determine additional propertiesof the fluid sample (or reservoir fluid), such as componentconcentrations, pressure-volume-temperature properties (e.g., bubblepoint, phase envelop prediction, etc.) based on the fluidcharacterization. This processing may occur at surface 112 in real-time.Alternatively, the processing may occur downhole hole or at surface 112or another location after recovery of formation testing tool 100 fromwellbore 104. Alternatively, the processing may be performed by aninformation handling system in wellbore 104, such as fluid analysismodule 118. The resultant fluid contamination and fluid properties maythen be transmitted to surface 112, for example, in real-time.

It should be noted that in examples a gas chromatographer 132 may bedisposed on surface 112 and analyze samples captures by formationtesting tool 100. For example, fluid analysis module 118 may capturefluid samples and bring them to the surface 112 for analysis at thewellsite. As illustrated, gas chromatographer 132 may be disposed invehicle 110. However, gas chromatographer 132 may be a standaloneassembly that may be available at the wellsite. Additionally,information handling system 122 may be connected to gas chromatographer132 through communication link 120. In examples, gas chromatographer 132may operate and function as described above.

Referring now to FIG. 2, FIG. 2 is a schematic diagram is shown offormation testing tool 100 disposed on a drill string 200 in a drillingoperation. Formation testing tool 100 may be used to obtain a fluidsample, for example, a fluid sample of a reservoir fluid fromsubterranean formation 106. The reservoir fluid may be contaminated withwell fluid (e.g., drilling fluid) from wellbore 104. As describedherein, the fluid sample may be analyzed to determine fluidcontamination and other fluid properties of the reservoir fluid. Asillustrated, a wellbore 104 may extend through subterranean formation106. While the wellbore 104 is shown extending generally vertically intothe subterranean formation 106, the principles described herein are alsoapplicable to wellbores that extend at an angle through the subterraneanformation 106, such as horizontal and slanted wellbores. For example,although FIG. 2 shows a vertical or low inclination angle well, highinclination angle or horizontal placement of the well and equipment isalso possible. It should further be noted that while FIG. 2 generallydepicts a land-based operation, those skilled in the art will readilyrecognize that the principles described herein are equally applicable tosubsea operations that employ floating or sea-based platforms and rigs,without departing from the scope of the disclosure.

As illustrated, a drilling platform 202 may support a derrick 204 havinga traveling block 206 for raising and lowering drill string 200. Drillstring 200 may include, but is not limited to, drill pipe and coiledtubing, as generally known to those skilled in the art. A kelly 208 maysupport drill string 200 as it may be lowered through a rotary table210. A drill bit 212 may be attached to the distal end of drill string200 and may be driven either by a downhole motor and/or via rotation ofdrill string 200 from the surface 112. Without limitation, drill bit 212may include, roller cone bits, PDC bits, natural diamond bits, any holeopeners, reamers, coring bits, and the like. As drill bit 212 rotates,it may create and extend wellbore 104 that penetrates varioussubterranean formations 106. A pump 214 may circulate drilling fluidthrough a feed pipe 216 to kelly 208, downhole through interior of drillstring 200, through orifices in drill bit 212, back to surface 112 viaannulus 218 surrounding drill string 200, and into a retention pit 220.

Drill bit 212 may be just one piece of a downhole assembly that mayinclude one or more drill collars 222 and formation testing tool 100.Formation testing tool 100, which may be built into the drill collars22) may gather measurements and fluid samples as described herein. Oneor more of the drill collars 222 may form a tool body 114, which may beelongated as shown on FIG. 2. Tool body 114 may be any suitablematerial, including without limitation titanium, stainless steel,alloys, plastic, combinations thereof, and the like. Formation testingtool 100 may be similar in configuration and operation to formationtesting tool 100 shown on FIG. 1 except that FIG. 2 shows formationtesting tool 100 disposed on drill string 200. Alternatively, thesampling tool may be lowered into the wellbore after drilling operationson a wireline.

Formation testing tool 100 may further include one or more sensors 116for measuring properties of the fluid sample reservoir fluid, wellbore104, subterranean formation 106, or the like. The properties of thefluid are measured as the fluid passes from the formation through thetool and into either the wellbore or a sample container. As fluid isflushed in the near wellbore region by the mechanical pump, the fluidthat passes through the tool generally reduces in drilling fluidfiltrate content, and generally increases in formation fluid content.Formation testing tool 100 may be used to collect a fluid sample fromsubterranean formation 106 when the filtrate content has been determinedto be sufficiently low. Sufficiently low depends on the purpose ofsampling. For some laboratory testing below 10% drilling fluidcontamination is sufficiently low, and for other testing below 1%drilling fluid filtrate contamination is sufficiently low. Sufficientlylow also depends on the nature of the formation fluid such that lowerrequirements are generally needed, the lighter the oil as designatedwith either a higher GOR or a higher API gravity. Sufficiently low alsodepends on the rate of cleanup in a cost benefit analysis since longerpumpout times required to incrementally reduce the contamination levelsmay have prohibitively large costs. As previously described, the fluidsample may include a reservoir fluid, which may be contaminated with adrilling fluid or drilling fluid filtrate. Formation testing tool 100may obtain and separately store different fluid samples fromsubterranean formation 106 with fluid analysis module 118. Fluidanalysis module 118 may operate and function in the same manner asdescribed above. However, storing of the fluid samples in the formationtesting tool 100 may be based on the determination of the fluidcontamination. For example, if the fluid contamination exceeds atolerance, then the fluid sample may not be stored. If the fluidcontamination is within a tolerance, then the fluid sample may be storedin the formation testing tool 100.

As previously described, information from formation testing tool 100 maybe transmitted to an information handling system 122, which may belocated at surface 112. As illustrated, communication link 120 (whichmay be wired or wireless, for example) may be provided that may transmitdata from formation testing tool 100 to an information handling system111 at surface 112. Information handling system 140 may include aprocessing unit 124, a monitor 126, an input device 128 (e.g., keyboard,mouse, etc.), and/or computer media 130 (e.g., optical disks, magneticdisks) that may store code representative of the methods describedherein. In addition to, or in place of processing at surface 112,processing may occur downhole (e.g., fluid analysis module 118). Inexamples, information handling system 122 may perform computations toestimate clean fluid composition.

As previously described above, a gas chromatographer 132 may be disposedon surface 112 and analyze samples captures by downhole fluid samplingtool 100. For example, fluid analysis module 118 may capture fluidsamples and bring them to the surface 112 for analysis at the wellsite.As illustrated, gas chromatographer 132 may be a standalone assemblythat may be available at the wellsite. Additionally, informationhandling system 122 may be connected to gas chromatographer 132 throughcommunication link 120. In examples, gas chromatographer 132 may operateand function as described above.

FIG. 3 is a schematic of formation testing tool 100. In examples,formation testing tool 100 includes a power telemetry section 302through which the tool communicates with other actuators and sensors 116in drill string 200 or conveyance 102 (e.g., referring to FIGS. 1 and2), and/or directly with a surface telemetry system (not illustrated).In examples, power telemetry section 302 may also be a port throughwhich the various actuators (e.g. valves) and sensors (e.g., temperatureand pressure sensors) in the formation testing tool 100 may becontrolled and monitored. In examples, power telemetry section 302includes a computer that exercises the control and monitoring function.In one example, the control and monitoring function is performed by acomputer in another part of the drill string or wireline tool (notshown) or by information handling system 122 on surface 112 (e.g.,referring to FIGS. 1 and 2).

In examples, formation testing tool 100 includes a dual probe section304, which extracts fluid from the reservoir and delivers it to achannel 306 that extends from one end of formation testing tool 100 tothe other. Without limitation, dual probe section 304 includes twoprobes 318, 320 which may extend from formation testing tool 100 andpress against the inner wall of wellbore 104 (e.g., referring to FIG.1). Probe channels 322, 324 may connect probes 318, 320 to channel 306.The high-volume bidirectional pump 312 may be used to pump fluids fromthe reservoir, through probe channels 322, 324 and to channel 306.Alternatively, a low volume pump 326 may be used for this purpose. Twostandoffs or stabilizers 328, 330 hold formation testing tool 100 inplace as probes 318, 320 press against the wall of wellbore 104. Inexamples, probes 318, 320 and stabilizers 328, 330 may be retracted whenformation testing tool 100 may be in motion and probes 318, 320 andstabilizers 328, 330 may be extended to sample the formation fluids atany suitable location in wellbore 104. Other probe sections includefocused sampling probes, oval probes, or packers.

In examples, channel 306 may be connected to other tools disposed ondrill string 200 or conveyance 102 (e.g., referring to FIGS. 1 and 2).In examples, formation testing tool 100 may also include a quartz gaugesection 308, which may include sensors to allow measurement ofproperties, such as temperature and pressure, of fluid in channel 306.Additionally, formation testing tool 100 may include a flow-controlpump-out section 310, which may include a high-volume bidirectional pump312 for pumping fluid through channel 306. In examples, formationtesting tool 100 may include two multi-chamber sections 314, 316,referred to collectively as multi-chamber sections 314, 316 orindividually as first multi-chamber section 314 and second multi-chambersection 316, respectively. Without limitation, formation testing tool100 may also be used in pressure testing operations.

For example, during pressure testing operations, probes 318, 320 may bepressed against the inner wall of wellbore 104 (e.g., referring to FIG.1). Pressure may increase at probes 318, 320 due to formation 106 (e.g.,referring to FIG. 1 or 2) exerting pressure on probes 318, 320. Aspressure rises and reaches a predetermined pressure, valves 332 opens soas to close equalizer valve 334, thereby isolating fluid passageway 336from the annulus 218. In this manner, valve 332 ensures that equalizervalve 334 closes only after probes 318, 320 has entered contact withmudcake (not illustrated) that is disposed against the inner wall ofwellbore 104. In examples, as probes 318, 320 are pressed against theinner wall of wellbore 104, the pressure rises and closes the equalizervalve in fluid passageway 336, thereby isolating the fluid passageway336 from the annulus 218. In this manner, the equalizer valve in fluidpassageway 336 may close before probes 318, 320 may have entered contactwith the mudcake that lines the inner wall of wellbore 104. Fluidpassageway 336, now closed to annulus 218, is in fluid communicationwith low volume pump 326.

As low volume pump 326 is actuated, formation fluid may thus be drawnthrough probe channels 322, 324 and probes 318, 320. The movement of lowvolume pump 326 lowers the pressure in fluid passageway 336 to apressure below the formation pressure, such that formation fluid isdrawn through probe channels 322, 324 and probes 318, 320 and into fluidpassageway 336. The pressure of the formation fluid may be measured influid passageway 336 while probes 318, 320 serves as a seal to preventannular fluids from entering fluid passageway 336 and invalidating theformation pressure measurement.

With low volume pump 326 in its fully retracted position and formationfluid drawn into fluid passageway 336, the pressure will stabilize andenable pressure transducers 338 to sense and measure formation fluidpressure. The measured pressure is transmitted to information handlingsystem 122 disposed on formation testing tool 100 and/or it may betransmitted to the surface via mud pulse telemetry or by any otherconventional telemetry means to an information handling system 122disposed on surface 112.

During this interval, pressure transducers 338 may continuously monitorthe pressure in fluid passageway 336 until the pressure stabilizes, orafter a predetermined time interval. When the measured pressurestabilizes, or after a predetermined time interval, for example at 1800psi, and is sensed by pressure transducer 338 the drawdown operation maybe complete. Once complete, fluid for the pressure test in fluidpassageway 336 may be dispelled from formation testing tool 100 throughthe opening and/or closing of valves 332 and/or equalizer valve 334 aslow volume pump 326 returns to a starting position.

During formation pressure test, an automated safe pressure testparameters of drawdown volume, drawdown rate, and drawdown pressure maybe calculated before and/or during the pressure test. These parametersrequire an initialization of formation testing tool 100 (e.g., referringto FIG. 1) and formation safe drawdown pressure limits, rate limits, andvolume limits. Utilizing the Darcy Flow Equation these three parametersdefine a safe envelop. An initial test is started with average (orpre-determined) initial drawdown values for each input. If during thecourse of a drawdown operation any position of this envelop is exceededthe drawdown is aborted and the buildup allowed to proceed, the drawdownparameters are reduced by a predetermined factor (e.g., two times) and anew set of safe parameters (upper and lower limits) may be calculatedusing the Darcy Flow Equation. As mentioned above, all pressure testsmay operate within a safe envelop, however, the operation may not beoptimized with the safe envelop.

Current technology may utilize the Darcy Flow Equation to calculate anidealized optimized test with one long full pressure test and apply theidealized optimized test to a second full pressure test because morethan two pressure tests are not possible, however, the set of two fullpressure tests may be longer than a set of two partial buildups and onefull optimized buildup. A partial buildup is defined as when thepressure measured in a pressure test does not reach a steady-stateformation pressure. A steady-state is defined as the stability of thepressure reading not changing significantly over a pre-determined timeinterval (e.g. 1 psi/min). It should be noted that the idealized buildupmay be based on unreliable data, and often the first drawdown containsartifacts that may skew the direction.

FIG. 4 illustrates workflow 400, which may identify operationalparameters for performing a pressure test. Workflow 400 may begin withblock 402. In block 402, a forward model is developed. In examples, theforward model may start as a Gradient Boosted Regression (GBR) model, aK-Nearest Neighbor (knn) model, a multi-layer perceptron or artificialneural network model, a Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) model, adecision tree model, or ensemble of multiple models, and/or the like.Without limitation, the forward model may be developed from a number ofknown variables and may function to find a relation between thevariables and a figure of merit from the corresponding pre-tests. Theforward model may include known variables from a history database ofpressure pre-test. For example, database may include a list of extractedformation parameters and list of tool parameters that may have beenfound in previous pressure pre-test. These variables may be used in theforward model so the forward model may find a relation between eachknown variable and corresponding pre-test figure of merit. Thus, theforward model may correlate tool historical pressure test drawdownvolumes, drawdown rates, drawdown pressures, as well as other toolparameters (such as the probe type and radius), and the formationparameters (e.g. Mobility, hydrostatic pressure, and/or formationpressure) to a figure of merit, further discussed below. The model mayeither be constructed before pressure test operations with modelparameters stored within information handling system 122 (e.g.,referring to FIG. 1) that may calculate and calibrate an initialpressure test or during pressure test operations with a best matchdataset to formation 106 (e.g., referring to FIG. 1). It should be notedthat information handling system 122 may be disposed on formationtesting tool 100 or at surface 112.

In block 404 personnel may perform an initial pre-test. During theinitial pre-test, at least one drawdown operation may be performedaccording to a set of initial parameters within a safe envelop. Theinitial parameters of drawdown volume, drawdown pressure, and/ordrawdown rate may be standard, pre-determined (for example by an offsetwell or analog formation) or calculated from one or more previous testswithin the same formation. Additionally, the initial parameters may comefrom the forward model described above. In examples, the drawdown isterminated after a partial buildup. A partial buildup may be pre-set, orcalculated according to the Darcy Equation, or predicted by the forwardmodel described above as applied to at least one pressure test withinthe formation from the current or analog well. It should be note thatthe Darcy Equation may be used by personnel to determine a safetyenvelop in which the partial buildup may be performed.

In examples, a partial build up may be defined as the length of time itmay take during a build up to reach stability with a pre-identifiedquality for the pre-test measurement. Without limitation, during thebuild up two stability measurements may be made from a pressure gauge(not illustrated) during the buildup. The two stability measurements maybe pressure stability and temperature stability. In FIG. 5, stabilityfor a build-up is determined from slope 500 of a linear least-squaresregression (LSR) line using the data from the last 60 seconds of abuildup operation. The same process is followed to obtain thetemperature data. Ideally, the temperature stability would be zerobecause any transient in the pressure gauge temperature may contributeto a pressure error. Without limitation, temperature stability may beless than 0.001 F/sec range and may have little effect on the pressuremeasurement.

In examples, for pressure stability, slope 500 may depend on theformation mobility. However, in examples this may not be the case as aresult of the near wellbore invasion of mud filtrate or even formationtesting tool 100 electromechanical characteristics. If the mudcake thatforms on the wellbore were a perfect hydraulic seal, then the formationmobility may have the most significant influence on the pressurestability. However, even a tiny fractional leakage of the mud filtratethrough the mudcake may influence buildup stability. Using standardlinear LSR method, the following quantities may be determined:

$\begin{matrix}{b = \frac{{\Sigma\; x_{i}y_{i}} - {\frac{1}{n}\Sigma\; x_{i}\Sigma\; y_{i}}}{{\Sigma\; x_{i}^{2}} - {\frac{1}{n}\left( {\Sigma\; x_{i}} \right)^{2}}}} & (1) \\{a = {\overset{\_}{y} - {\overset{\_}{b} \cdot \overset{\_}{x}}}} & (2)\end{matrix}$where the pressure or temperature stability is represented by the linearequation,y=a+b·x  (3)and y_(i) is the dependent variable of pressure or temperature and x_(i)is the independent variable of time (x and y are the mean values ofx_(i) and y_(i)). It should be noted that this linear function may alsobe used to estimate the final pressure and temperature at the end of thebuildup. The use of the LSR linear function to determine the finalpressure and temperature reduces potential noise errors in the data. Indownhole tools the noise source may be mechanical systems such as thehydraulic or electrical motors that are running. For logging whiledrilling tools, the borehole mud is normally circulating during a test.Pressure disturbances generated by a downhole mud pulser, surface mudpumps, or circulation turbulence may be a source of noise measured bythe pressure gauge. In examples, the noise may exceed a standarddeviation of ±1 psi. For this reason, the determination of the standarddeviation is a quality control criterion that may be determined from thelinear regression function as follows:

$\begin{matrix}{\sigma_{y} = \sqrt{\frac{{\Sigma\left( {y_{i}\left( {a + {b \cdot x_{i}}} \right)} \right)}^{2}}{n - 1}}} & (4)\end{matrix}$

The quality of the drawdown pressure test is defined as a weightedaverage score of the different contributing variables (stability,mobility, radius of investigation, and supercharge) of a pressure test.

In block 406, during the initial pre-test, measurements of the formationparameters are taken. It should be noted that tool parameters mayalready be known from construction of formation testing tool 100 (e.g.,referring to FIG. 1). These measurements may be used to optimize futurepressure test. For example, measured formation parameters are fixedmeasurements that cannot be changed unless the formation changesnaturally. Tool parameters are values that may be changed by personnelto increase the efficiency and measurement capability of formationtesting tool 100 during pressure testing operations.

In block 408, the formation parameters and tool parameters obtained inblock 406 serve as new input variables into the forward model from block402 to predict a Figure of Merit. The Figure of Merit may be weightedaccording to pre-job planning. In examples, stability and quality asdefined in block 404, may be two metrics that help define a figure ofmerit. The figure of merit may be expressed as seen below in thefollowing equation:

$\begin{matrix}\frac{{Quality}^{WQ} + {Q\min}}{{Time}^{WT} + {T\min}} & (5)\end{matrix}$where the weight is a positive number and minimum quality or minimumtime positive numbers.

The variables of Equation 5 are defined below. Quality is defined aScore found in the following method. In examples, a rating settings forValid and the Range serve as the basis for the rating analysis toestablish a Score. The Score ranges from 0 to 4 (i.e., lowest tohighest) with a Score of 2 considered Valid. The range determines thelower and upper limits (i.e., 0-4) of the Score by scaling the Validsetting geometrically. The Score depends on whether an upper limit orlower limit over the range is desirable. For example, for the stabilitymeasurements and supercharging, a Value below the Valid setting isscored higher. The Score is geometrically scaled around 2 and depends onthe Range and Valid criteria as follows:

$\begin{matrix}{{Value} = {{Valid}*{Range}^{({1 - \frac{Score}{2}})}}} & (6) \\{{Score} = {2\left( {1 - \frac{\log\left( \frac{{Value}}{Valid} \right)}{\log({Range})}} \right)}} & (7)\end{matrix}$

It should be noted that the absolute value is used for the Value todetermine the Score. In examples, the stability could be negative, forscoring purposes the absolute value is used. For the mobility (M_(sdd))and radius of investigation (r_(inv)), a value above the Valid settingis a higher score and geometrically scales as follows:

$\begin{matrix}{{Value} = {{Valid}*{Range}^{({\frac{Score}{2} - 1})}}} & (8) \\{{Score} = {2\left( {1 = {+ \frac{\log\left( \frac{{Value}}{Valid} \right)}{\log({Range})}}} \right)}} & (9)\end{matrix}$

The Score being limited between 4 and 0 uses the following logic: Formeasured values where the lower values are desirable (Stability andSupercharge); If the measured Value>Valid*Range then, Score=0 If themeasured Value<Valid/Range then, Score=4 IfValid/Range≤Value≤Valid*Range then, Use Eq. 1. Where higher measuredvalues are desirable (Mobility and Radius of Investigation). If themeasured Value<Valid*Range then, Score=0; If the measuredValue>Valid/Range then, Score=4; If Valid/Range≥Value≥Valid*Range then,Use Eq. 3.

The final scoring is determined from a weighted average of all qualitycontrol criterion scoring. For the final score, each quality criteria isgiven a weighting factor from 0 to 1 with 1, being the highest. Theweighting factors w_(i) determine the fraction that an individual Scorecontributes to the final Score as shown below:

$\begin{matrix}{{Score} = {\Sigma_{{i = 1},n}\left( {{Score}_{i}\frac{w_{i}}{\Sigma_{{i = 1},n}w_{i}}} \right)}} & (10)\end{matrix}$

Using the final Score, comments are determined using the followinglogic. Low Quality Value<0.5; Fair=0.5≤Value<1.5; Valid=1.5≤Value<2.5;Good=2.5≤Value<3.5; and High Quality=Value≥3.5.

Weight for Quality (“WQ”) and Weight for Time (“WT”) may range from 0 to2 (or even higher) depending on how much emphasis the pre-job planningchooses to weight quality and/or time. For example, a 1 is chosen forQuality and a 0 is chosen for Time when the emphasis is strictly focusedon the quality of the pre-test. Alternatively, a combination of 1 couldbe chosen for Quality, and WT=½ for Time to de-emphasize the build-uptime contribution to the figure of merit. Other weighting examples canbe chosen. Q_(min) is defined as the minimum quality accepted bypersonnel and could range from 0 to as high as 2 or even 3. Time isdefined as the length of time from the start of a buildup to and end ofa buildup. Without limitation, other weighting examples may be chosen.T_(min) is defined as the minimum time it takes for a buildup. It mayrange from (as low as) 0 or 30 sec, and up to 100 sec or more.

Block 410 optimizes the tool parameters while keeping the formationparameters held fixed. Using the forward model, a figure of merit ispredicted. The optimization evolves by changing the tool parameters,subsequently predicting a new figure of merit, such that the figure ofmerit moves towards a maximum. For example, tool parameters may be inputinto the forward model of block 402 and the forward model may beoptimized using gradient based algorithms, Bayesian Optimization,Simplex Optimization, and/or the like.

In examples, formation parameters and the tool parameters are used inthe forward model from block 402 to predict the figure of merit with atleast one parameter varied from the initial tool parameters. Utilizingalgorithms above, tool parameters may be optimized. Tool parametersbeing optimized is defined as changing tool parameters from the initialpre-test in block 404 to configure formation testing tool 100 to improvethe figure of merit described above. As described above, the modeledfigure of merit may be calculated exactly for the first partial drawdownand the forward model from block 402 may be combined with the figure ofmerit for a second partial drawdown may produce a second modeled figureof merit. It should be noted that if the initial condition parametersare outside of the safe envelop condition and a second modeled parametermay be used instead that falls within the safe condition and instead ofusing the first drawdown and partial buildup. Without limitation twostarting points within a safe envelop may be modeled. At least one thirdposition is chosen from a combination of the first two. In examples, forcombination is a reflection perpendicular to the multivariate linebetween the first two points forming a geometric multidimensionalsimplex method. The third point is combined with the first two makingpreferably by the geometric multidimensional simplex method, with aforth drawdown modeled. Subsequent drawdowns may be modeled in a similarfashion, until either the optimum merit function value is discoveredwithin a tolerance, or a maximum number of iterations has beendetermined. The safe envelop may be used as a constraint for anygeometric multidimensional simplex method. It should be noted that othermethods other than the geometric multidimensional simplex method may beused to determine a drawdown set such as but not limited to nonlinearquazi-newtonian optimization.

Additionally, it should be noted that in block 410, parameters may bechosen or defined within a safety envelop to allow for safe pressuredrawdown, safe partial buildup, safe pressure operations, and/or thelike. These parameters may be related to the drawdown volume, drawdownpressure, and drawdown rate through the Darcy Equation, but used as theprimary means of controlling pressure operations. A safety envelop aremax and/or min parameters that may be used by formation testing tool 100to perform pressure test operations.

In block 412, a second initial pre-test is performed based onoptimization of tool parameters found with the forward model from block410. The second initial pre-test may be performed as described above.During the second initial pre-test, a second partial buildup may beperformed. Without limitation, the second partial buildup may beperformed within the safety envelope found above in Block 410.

Without limitation, comparison of the first initial pre-test to thesecond initial pre-test may provide a characterization of the formation,reservoirs within the formation, and nearest neighbors. Thesecharacterizations may be added to the historical library of formationtests, described above, to develop a highly localized model of the area.As described above, the forward model may be used to form a secondarymodel that optimizes tool parameters, which may be applied to the seconddrawdown and partial buildups in order to iteratively refine the forwardmodel within a tolerance or terminating after a fixed number ofiterations.

In block 414, the process described in blocks 406 to 410 may be repeatedoptimization of tool parameters until pressure operations are notaffected by the change in tool parameters. Additionally, in block 414,the first pre-test and second pre-test (or additional tests ifperformed) may be compared to determine if found formation parametersmay be reliable. If the second pre-test produces a low figure of meritthat may be similar to the first forward model figure of merit, thepressure test location may be abandoned as a difficult location topressure test.

It should be note that if the second pre-test is outside a tolerancepre-determined by personnel, it may be determined that the formation mayneed additional partial pressure tests to determine formationparameters. Thus, subsequent test may be performed in accordance withblock 404 block 412. It should be noted that this process may continuewith as many pressure tests as necessary. The sequence of using the lastpressure test response as compared to the actual response may continueuntil the subsequent pressure test fall within the pre-determinedtolerance or until a limit has been reached. Additionally, a qualitycontrol pressure test may be performed to review all pre-test taken. Itshould be noted that a complete pressure test may qualify as the qualitycontrol pressure test.

As discussed above, the disclosed workflow 400 may utilize two pressuretests to determine a third where three or more pressure tests may beperformed by formation testing tool 100. Workflow 400 makes use ofpartial buildups to rapidly assess a formation 106 (e.g., referring toFIG. 1 or 2). The method specifically utilized two quick partialbuildups learn the formation in the context of historical pressuretested formations and map the optimal drawdown volume, drawdownpressure, and drawdown rate specially within the safe pressure testenvelop. Further if the mapped space may be unusual with regards to ahigh residual in the mapping process, a warning may initiate that thisformation type has not been encountered. Under these circumstances athird drawdown with partial buildup may be used to confirm formation 106may be an outlier with respect to mapping. Further if the predictedpressure test quality for a third test is low (assuming the formation iswell mapped) the location may be recognized as a difficult pressure testspot and an option may be taken to move. A quick forth drawdown andpartial buildup may be used to confirm the pressure test spot isdifficult. If the pressure test location is not determined to bedifficult or an outlier (as defined above), then a forth partial buildupmay be used to confirm the quality of the third test by forwardmodeling. If conventional repeat may be performed, it may be performedwith repute formation parameters or next formation parameters. If theformation is difficult to learn, multiple partial pressure tests may beused, however, aborting the sequence after a set number of pressuretests may be optional. The partial buildup time may also be controlledas part of the method, although constrained to a minimum and maximumvalue. Previous zones and identified formation parameters within theprevious zones may be used to supplement a current pressure test.

Improvements over current technology may be found in the accuracy andreliability of extracted formation parameters from a pressures test,namely mobility and formation pressure. As a result of this process,these parameters may be extracted more accurately and reliably in ashorter amount of time, thus saving rig time and reducing risk of toolissues such as sticking. This new approach improves the efficiency offormation pressure testing by combining machine learning algorithms andoptimization to determine optimal sampling tool parameters in real-time.In doing so, a higher quality pressure transient analysis can beobtained with less operational tool-time and an improved estimate offormation properties.

The preceding description provides various embodiments of systems andmethods of use which may contain different method steps and alternativecombinations of components. It should be understood that, althoughindividual embodiments may be discussed herein, the present disclosurecovers all combinations of the disclosed embodiments, including, withoutlimitation, the different component combinations, method stepcombinations, and properties of the system.

Statement 1. A method for performing a pressure test may compriseinserting a formation testing tool into a wellbore to a first locationwithin the wellbore, wherein the formation testing tool includes: atleast one probe; a pump disposed within the formation testing tool andconnect to the at least one probe by at least one probe channel and atleast one fluid passageway; and at least one stabilizer disposed on anopposite side of the formation testing tool as the at least one probe;identifying one or more tool parameters of the formation testing tool;activating the at least one stabilizer, wherein the at least onestabilizer is activated into a surface of the wellbore; activating theat least one probe, wherein the at least one probe is activated into amudcake, wherein the mudcake is disposed on the surface of the wellbore;activating the pump, wherein a formation fluid is drawn in through theat least one probe into the at least one probe channel and the at leastone fluid passageway by the pump and increasing pressure with the atleast one fluid passageway; reading the pressure in the at least onefluid passageway by a pressure transducer; performing a first pre-testwith the pressure transducer when the pressure has stabilized toidentify formation parameters; inputting the formation parameters andthe one or more tool parameters into a forward model; changing the oneor more tool parameters to a second set of tool parameters; performing asecond pre-test with the second set of tool parameters; and comparingthe first pre-test to the second pre-test.

Statement 2. The method of statement 1, further comprising performingthe pressure test within a safety envelope.

Statement 3. The method of statements 1 or 2, wherein the secondpre-test includes a second drawdown with at least a partial buildupusing results of the forward model.

Statement 4. The method of statement 2, further comprising performing athird pre-test with a third drawdown.

Statement 5. The method of statement 4, wherein the third pre-test is aquality control test with a complete buildup.

Statement 6. The method of statements 1-3, further comprising creatingthe forward model from historical pressure test which include one ormore drawdown volumes, one or more drawdown rates, one or more drawdownpressures, the one or more tool parameters, or the formation parameters,and a figure of merit.

Statement 7. The method of statement 6, wherein the forward model is aGaussian Process Regression model, Gradient Boosted Regression model, Knearest neighbor's model, support vector machine model, multi-layerperceptron, or artificial neural network model.

Statement 8. The method of statement 1-3, or 6, further comprisingperforming the pressure testing with one or more tool parametersidentified by the forward model.

Statement 9. The method of statement 8, wherein the forward modelincludes historic pressure test from an analog well.

Statement 10. The method of statement 1-3, 6, or 8, further comprisingperforming three more pre-test and changing the one or more toolparameters during each pre-test.

Statement 11. A system for performing a pressure test may comprise aformation testing tool comprising: at least one probe; a pump disposedwithin the formation testing tool and connect to the at least one probeby at least one probe channel and at least one fluid passageway; atleast one stabilizer disposed on an opposite side of the formationtesting tool as the at least one probe; a pressure transducer disposedat least partially in the at least one fluid passageway; and aninformation handling system configured to: input one or more formationparameters and one or more tool parameters into a forward model from afirst pre-test; change the one or more tool parameters to a second setof tool parameters for a second pre-test; and compare the first pre-testto the second pre-test.

Statement 12. The system of statement 11, wherein the informationhandling system is further configured to create the forward model fromhistorical pressure test which include one or more drawdown volumes, oneor more drawdown rates, one or more drawdown pressures, the one or moretool parameters, or the one or more formation parameters, and a figureof merit.

Statement 13. The system of statement 12, wherein the forward model is aGaussian Process Regression model, Gradient Boosted Regression model, Knearest neighbor's model, support vector machine model, multi-layerperceptron, or artificial neural network model.

Statement 14. The system of statements 11 or 12, wherein the forwardmodel includes historic pressure test from an analog well.

Statement 15. The system of statements 11, 12, or 14, wherein theinformation handling system is further configured to change the one ormore tool parameters three or more times for three or more pre-test.

Statement 16. A method for performing a pressure test comprising:performing a first pre-test with a pressure transducer when pressure hasstabilized to identify one or more formation parameters; inputting theone or more formation parameters and one or more tool parameters into aforward model; changing the one or more tool parameters to a second setof one or more tool parameters; performing a second pre-test with thesecond set of one or more tool parameters; and comparing the firstpre-test to the second pre-test.

Statement 17. The method of statement 16, further comprising performingthe first pre-test and the second pre-test within a safety envelope.

Statement 18. The method of statements 16 or 17, wherein the secondpre-test include a second drawdown with at least a partial buildup usingresults from the forward model.

Statement 19. The method of statements 16-18, further comprisingperforming a third pre-test with a third drawdown.

Statement 20. The method of statements 16-19, wherein the third pre-testis a quality control test with a complete buildup.

It should be understood that the compositions and methods are describedin terms of “comprising,” “containing,” or “including” variouscomponents or steps, the compositions and methods can also “consistessentially of” or “consist of” the various components and steps.Moreover, the indefinite articles “a” or “an,” as used in the claims,are defined herein to mean one or more than one of the elements that itintroduces.

Therefore, the present embodiments are well adapted to attain the endsand advantages mentioned as well as those that are inherent therein. Theparticular embodiments disclosed above are illustrative only, as thepresent disclosure may be modified and practiced in different butequivalent manners apparent to those skilled in the art having thebenefit of the teachings herein. Although individual embodiments arediscussed, the disclosure covers all combinations of all thoseembodiments. Furthermore, no limitations are intended to the details ofconstruction or design herein shown, other than as described in theclaims below. Also, the terms in the claims have their plain, ordinarymeaning unless otherwise explicitly and clearly defined by the patentee.It is therefore evident that the particular illustrative embodimentsdisclosed above may be altered or modified and all such variations areconsidered within the scope and spirit of the present disclosure. Ifthere is any conflict in the usages of a word or term in thisspecification and one or more patent(s) or other documents that may beincorporated herein by reference, the definitions that are consistentwith this specification should be adopted.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for performing a pressure testcomprising: inserting a formation testing tool into a wellbore to afirst location within the wellbore, wherein the formation testing toolincludes: at least one probe; a pump disposed within the formationtesting tool and connect to the at least one probe by at least one probechannel and at least one fluid passageway; and at least one stabilizerdisposed on an opposite side of the formation testing tool as the atleast one probe; identifying one or more tool parameters of theformation testing tool; activating the at least one stabilizer, whereinthe at least one stabilizer is activated into a surface of the wellbore;activating the at least one probe, wherein the at least one probe isactivated into a mudcake, wherein the mudcake is disposed on the surfaceof the wellbore; activating the pump, wherein a formation fluid is drawnin through the at least one probe into the at least one probe channeland the at least one fluid passageway by the pump and increasingpressure with the at least one fluid passageway; reading the pressure inthe at least one fluid passageway by a pressure transducer; performing afirst pre-test with the pressure transducer when the pressure hasstabilized to identify formation parameters; inputting the formationparameters and the one or more tool parameters into a forward model;changing the one or more tool parameters to a second set of toolparameters; performing a second pre-test with the second set of toolparameters; and comparing the first pre-test to the second pre-test. 2.The method of claim 1, further comprising performing the pressure testwithin a safety envelope.
 3. The method of claim 2, further comprisingperforming a third pre-test with a third drawdown.
 4. The method ofclaim 3, wherein the third pre-test is a quality control test with acomplete buildup.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the second pre-testincludes a second drawdown with at least a partial buildup using resultsof the forward model.
 6. The method of claim 1, further comprisingcreating the forward model from historical pressure test which includeone or more drawdown volumes, one or more drawdown rates, one or moredrawdown pressures, the one or more tool parameters, or the formationparameters, and a figure of merit.
 7. The method of claim 6, wherein theforward model is a Gaussian Process Regression model, Gradient BoostedRegression model, K nearest neighbor's model, support vector machinemodel, multi-layer perceptron, or artificial neural network model. 8.The method of claim 1, further comprising performing the pressuretesting with one or more tool parameters identified by the forwardmodel.
 9. The method of claim 8, wherein the forward model includeshistoric pressure test from an analog well.
 10. The method of claim 1,further comprising performing three more pre-test and changing the oneor more tool parameters during each pre-test.
 11. A system forperforming a pressure test comprising: a formation testing toolcomprising: at least one probe; a pump disposed within the formationtesting tool and connect to the at least one probe by at least one probechannel and at least one fluid passageway; at least one stabilizerdisposed on an opposite side of the formation testing tool as the atleast one probe; a pressure transducer disposed at least partially inthe at least one fluid passageway; and an information handling systemconfigured to: input one or more formation parameters and one or moretool parameters into a forward model from a first pre-test; change theone or more tool parameters to a second set of tool parameters for asecond pre-test; and compare the first pre-test to the second pre-test.12. The system of claim 11, wherein the information handling system isfurther configured to create the forward model from historical pressuretest which include one or more drawdown volumes, one or more drawdownrates, one or more drawdown pressures, the one or more tool parameters,or the one or more formation parameters, and a figure of merit.
 13. Thesystem of claim 12, wherein the forward model is a Gaussian ProcessRegression model, Gradient Boosted Regression model, K nearestneighbor's model, support vector machine model, multi-layer perceptron,or artificial neural network model.
 14. The system of claim 11, whereinthe forward model includes historic pressure test from an analog well.15. The system of claim 11, wherein the information handling system isfurther configured to change the one or more tool parameters three ormore times for three or more pre-test.
 16. A method for performing apressure test comprising: performing a first pre-test with a pressuretransducer when pressure has stabilized to identify one or moreformation parameters; inputting the one or more formation parameters andone or more tool parameters into a forward model; changing the one ormore tool parameters to a second set of one or more tool parameters;performing a second pre-test with the second set of one or more toolparameters; and comparing the first pre-test to the second pre-test. 17.The method of claim 16, further comprising performing the first pre-testand the second pre-test within a safety envelope.
 18. The method ofclaim 16, wherein the second pre-test include a second drawdown with atleast a partial buildup using results from the forward model.
 19. Themethod of claim 16, further comprising performing a third pre-test witha third drawdown.
 20. The method of claim 19, wherein the third pre-testis a quality control test with a complete buildup.